Homosexuality And The Purpose Of The Chruch

[wenglund]

To be clear, I'm in complete agreement that a homosexual lifestyle is sinful and same-sex marriage is not Biblical. But does that really mean the church should actively oppose same-sex marriage(SSM)? I'm suggesting they shouldn't.

I believe it all comes down to what the purpose of the church is in the world. What is the church's priority when it comes to interacting with non-believers? Is it to get everyone to follow God's rules? Or is it to spread the gospel and make disciples of all nations? If it's the former, then making traditional marriage the law of the land makes sense.

I believe you have not only confused the end with the means, but you have also fallaciously assumed an either/or condition (the fallacy of bifurcation).

First of all, the purpose (or end) of the gospel is to bring us to Christ and enable us to become like him. This purpose is accomplished by the following means: proclaiming the gospel, perfecting the saints (i.e. encouraging them to follow God's rules), and redeeming the dead.

Please note that, in some respects, the means include both your options above, and not one or the other.

Second, the Church was been established to act as a viable structure to facilitate these means.

However, to some degree, it is an interim structure preparatory to and assisting of the fundamental structure of heaven and earth--i.e. the family, formed preferably under the new and everlasting covenant of marriage.

In other words, marriage (between a man and a woman) and families, are fundamental to the intent and purpose of the gospel.

As such, it makes perfect sense that the Church would become involved to a limited extent with marital and family issues. Obviously. This is very basic stuff, as the Proclamation on the Family attests.

The only mystery here that I can see is why some people, like you, don't see the basic and obvious?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Damien the Leper]

What is audacious is your idea that religious people should have no input in the government they live under, that only people who don't want religious principles involved have the right to rule. Audacious in the extreme.

You are correct. I apologize and retract my statements. It is not that I don't want people of faith to have a say in governmental issues. They are, after all, citizens of the same country.

Neither side should have more pull or power over the other.

[guerreiro9]

I find it to be a disservice to certain members of the LGBT community to have stereotypes (no matter how true for certain people and groups of people) shoved down their throats. I don't much care for generalizations especially when the community such generalizations are targeting hit close to home (whether they be based on sexual orientation or religion). The sitcoms are not the norm for many of us and those of us whom it does not represent deserve not to be objectified by such.

Valentinus,

Although I am fairly new to the forum, I have read a number of your posts and found them to be articulate and well thought out. Although we disagree on some issues, I appreciate your opinion and what you add to the forum.

I apologize for my remark about sitcoms, it appears not to have come across in the way that I meant it, and I can understand why you would be less than thrilled by it. I do not endorse nor believe the stereotype being fostered by current television programming. I think it creates a caricature of those who actually engage in homosexual lifestyles and promotes very materialistic values. It was an off the cuff flippant remark and did not add anything to my post or my argument. I will be more careful in the future.

[Damien the Leper]

Valentinus,

Although I am fairly new to the forum, I have read a number of your posts and found them to be articulate and well thought out. Although we disagree on some issues, I appreciate your opinion and what you add to the forum.

I apologize for my remark about sitcoms, it appears not to have come across in the way that I meant it, and I can understand why you would be less than thrilled by it. I do not endorse nor believe the stereotype being fostered by current television programming. I think it creates a caricature of those who actually engage in homosexual lifestyles and promotes very materialistic values. It was an off the cuff flippant remark and did not add anything to my post or my argument. I will be more careful in the future.

Thank you for the comments and compliments. I just don't care to be generally charactarized as something that I'm not. I'm not going to be on any bandwagon nor forced to join it.

I don't like it when LDS people are generally characterized by some peculiarity that originated with some other oddity. It isn't fair to those who do not consider themselves to be part of such.

I'm glad you clarified. It is most unfortunate that we have ignoramuses who over-generalize.

[wenglund]

You are, of course, right, Wade. But persons are also granted, constitutionally speaking, the freedom FROM religion. And if such a camp perseveres against the rule of religion or, more ridiculously and pretentiously termed, theocracy then so be it.

People have a right to religion just as much as people have a right NOT to be ruled by it. It's simple liberties.

I am sorry, but the last part of your post doesn't make sense. In a democracy, if the majority of the people are religious, and they exercise their constitutional right to vote according to their religious consciences, then the result will unavoidably be that the people will be, in some respect, ruled by religion. In truth, there is no such right to "NOT to be ruled by it." You made that up. The only constitutional prohibition (not to be confused with right) is against the establishment of religion--which is worlds apart from what we are talking about in the SSM issue.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[ERayR]

You are correct. I apologize and retract my statements. It is not that I don't want people of faith to have a say in governmental issues. They are, after all, citizens of the same country.

Neither side should have more pull or power over the other.

Only as much as they are able to attain by the political process within the protections offered that government for minorities.

Edited August 10, 2012 by ERayR

[selek1]

But does that really mean the church should actively oppose same-sex marriage(SSM)? I'm suggesting they shouldn't.

Not to put too fine a point on it: we care what you think why exactly?

The Church is bombarded by hundreds of thousands of unsolicited opinions about what they should do, and what they should say, every day.

What makes yours special or compelling?

What is the church's priority when it comes to interacting with non-believers? Is it to get everyone to follow God's rules? Or is it to spread the gospel and make disciples of all nations?

This is a false dichotomy. At best.

Not only does it represent an erroneous either/or dilemma, It also ignores a number of fundamentals inherent to the Church and its mission.

First and foremost, we are called to serve not only as witnesses to Christ and the Gospel, but as a beacon of righteousness. The Church is (in ever sense of the metaphor) a city on a hill.

It is not enough that we testify of Christ- we are commissioned to proclaim righteousness and cry repentance to the lost and fallen.

If it's the former, then making traditional marriage the law of the land makes sense. But hopefully most believers see the latter as the priority. Protestants, evangelicals and LDS disagree on quite a few things, including what the gospel is, but it seems like they agree the gospel should be our priority.

As noted- in resisting the tide of iniquity- we are proclaiming the Gospel.

So why are we letting SSM dominate so many conversations?

You seem to be laboring under the mistaken impression that the Church- rather than Babylon- chose this battle and picked this fight. We did not.

Traditional marriage is already the law of the land. In every instance it has been the radical homosexual lobby- not the Church- who seeks to impose their private standard upon the public at large.

In every instance where the Church interjects itself into the issue, it is acting in defense of traditional morality, rather than to impose its own standard.

Besides, what would a traditional marriage law actually stop?

Primarily- it would slow (rather than stop) the creeping tide of moral relatavism. SSM activists are demanding that the state sanction depravity.

They are demanding that the government of the people endorse behavior that is not only detrimental to the moral fabric of the nation, but is also morally repugnant to the vast majority of the population and antithetical to the laws of God.

Twenty years ago, the radical homosexual movement's war cry was "keep the government out of our bedroom". Now, however, they want to drag their sexual antics into the public square to be celebrated under threat of force.

They are not content to live their lives in quiet dignity- they are demanding moral sanction and public approbation- and have arrogated to themselves the right to teach our children that their immoral conduct is not only valid, but praiseworthy.

Neither is true- homosexual intercourse and the "gay" lifestyle are corrosive not only to the physical health of the participants, but to their moral and psychological health as well.

There is a reason that homosexual men die (on average) thirty years younger than their heterosexual peers.

There are reasons why incidents of suicide, domestic violence, and drug and substance abuse run between 30 and 300% higher among homosexual populations than their heterosexual counterparts.

And it has nothing to do with bullying, harassment, or the lack of legal sanction for thier conduct.

Far too many SSM advocates (and you will see them so do in this very thread) will try desperately to ignore these inconenient truths- opting instead for doleful cries of "prejudice", "hate speech", and well poisoning.

In the name of appearing "open-minded", "tolerant", and "enlightened", they will try to reframe the issue to suggest that they have some intrinsic right to be free of criticism- while attempting to silence any whiff of dissent- no matter how well reasoned.

Same-sex couples have been living together for many years. Other than a few tax laws and a government document saying they're married, what's the difference between a same-sex couple living together and a traditional marriage?

It is the difference between the State tolerating the illicit self-destruction of its citizens and holding up that self-destruction as a praiseworthy standard.

No state, no nation, no people who have embraced and celebrated their iniquities has endured. Not one.

The Greeks, the Romans, the Byzantines, the Israelites, the Babylonians- all embraced a sort of laisse-faire hedonism: the result was the disintegration of their culture, their identity as a people, and their status as a world power.

Compare that with the issue of abortion... The anti-abortion movement is stopping sin, saving lives and making disciples. Can the anti-SSM movement claim similar results? Have you heard of someone changing their homosexual lifestyle because they heard an anti-SSM message?

Yes- on all counts.

Of course, you don't expect the pomp of Babylon to roll over and go meekly, quietly, into the night do you?

The MSM and the radical homosexual activists have been waging a very public war of perception and propaganda- one you have apparently bought into.

In that regard, they are no different than the abortionists in the mid-nineties and turn of the century. Ten and fifteen years ago, we were assured in no uncertain terms that the War had been lost and abortion was here to stay- not only accepted, but championed as a woman's "right".

Christians and people of good character stood their ground and refused to be bullied into compliance and complaisance.

Now the tide is turning once again- and the tried and true understanding of the sanctity of life is reasserting itself.

The creeping flood of homosexual militancy is reaching- if not having already exceeded- its high-water mark.

The excesses and arrogance of the radical SSM crowd have begun to alienate the "grassroots" of American wholesale. Common sense is beginning to reassert itself.

The tide is beginning to recede.

I'm not suggesting any church should support SSM. We can still maintain a doctrinal and philosophical resistance to SSM without trying to make a law about it.

Again- you're buying the hype that the Church picked this fight.

We did not.

But with the enemy at the gates, it would be moral cowardice at its basest and most rank to cease proclaiming righteousness.

It would be a betrayal not only of our sacred commission, but a slap in the face of the Lord who redeemed us.

Wherever the Church has interposed in a matter of civil law, it has done so for two reasons: first, to preserve and proclaim the standards the Lord has decreed. Second, it does so as a representative of the collective voices of its members and citizens.

Demanding (as you are subtly attempting to do) that the Church stay silence in the face of moral decay and the subversion of our laws and common morality is to attempt to disenfranchise a people based on their religious beliefs.

[guerreiro9]

You are correct. I apologize and retract my statements. It is not that I don't want people of faith to have a say in governmental issues. They are, after all, citizens of the same country.

Neither side should have more pull or power over the other.

Valentinus,

Perhaps you would be willing to clarify your final sentence, I do not believe you meant it in the way I am reading in.

Nonetheless I will address it as written. As wenglund and and ERayR has commented, within a representative government those in the majority will have and should always have more power in the political process. Protections need to be in place to ensure the minority is not abused, but the minority should not have the same power as the majority in a representative government.

[Flyonthewall]

...

Neither side should have more pull or power over the other.

I believe this is why there are basic constitutional protections, but it also allows a community standard. That is how some states can have counties that are dry, and some that are not.

[Damien the Leper]

I am sorry, but the last part of your post doesn't make sense. In a democracy, if the majority of the people are religious, and they exercise their constitutional right to vote according to their religious consciences, then the result will unavoidably be that the people will be, in some respect, ruled by religion. In truth, there is no such right to "NOT to be ruled by it." You made that up. The only constitutional prohibition (not to be confused with right) is against the establishment of religion--which is worlds apart from what we are talking about in the SSM issue.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Let me clarify...I am not subject to any religious rule. No religious establisment nor its agenda determine how I am to live my life. Now, if religious persons vote to enforce some form of moral or ethic and are successful in doing so by proper procedure then other measures can be taken to counter them. An example, anti-sodomy laws were and are ridiculous imposed by certain religious morals and values and thankfully America has been growing up since such laws were enacted. As America continues to progress, it will still look back at the silliness of certain laws.

For further clarification, perhaps marriage is NOT a right or liberty for ANY person.

I suppose that no one gets to have their cake and eat it too.

[Akboy]

Endorsing as family arrangements contrary to the eternal nature of the family does not strike me as bringing people unto Christ or insuring their eternal joy. While I can allow all mankind to worship or not according to the dictates of their own conscience I am not compelled to endorse practices contrary to the gospel and claim they are consistent with eternal principles I am familiar with.

Like I said in the OP, I'm not suggesting any church should support SSM. I doubt you're supporting laws against lying or adultery, but that doesn't mean you're endorsing or supporting those sins at all.

I believe the reason the Church takes a stance against SSM is because if you give an inch, they'll take a mile. The SSM agenda is to force their way into the Church and force us to seal them in the temple.

http://www.telegraph...-in-church.html

edited to add: If it stopped at Civil Union it would be fine but if you read the above article the folks in Denmark already had Civil Union.

That issue is already an issue in the US. Multiple examples have been circulating, like the photographer who got sued because she didn't want to take pictures at a same-sex commitment ceremony. Or the couples counselor who got fired because she told a same-sex couple she couldn't counsel them. Here in Anchorage, Alaska, we recently stopped proposition 5 from passing which would have opened the door to similar situations.

Stopping SSM won't stop the intrusion into our religious rights. The key is some kind of law or amendment that protects religious individuals and organizations from doing things that conflict with their beliefs. If that is passed, then even if SSM is legalized, no church will be forced to perform a ceremony for a same-sex couple.

I believe the Church of Jesus Christ should actively oppose the acceptance into society of any behavior that they deem harmful. I would expect no less from any other church or any other organization that claims to stand for something (whatever it may be).

I am personally against the acceptance and normalization of the same sex lifestyle into our culture. I believe that our sexuality is strongly influenced by our culture (fact), and this includes whether we choose to engage in a homosexual lifestyle (debated, but I believe it to be the case). If it is the case, the more we accept and celebrate (seen any recent sitcoms?) the homosexual lifestyle, the more people will choose to engage in it. I do not believe this is an issue that will occur in a vacuum. All of us will be affected by this, and one way or another it will define who we are as a culture.

But how effective has it actually been? Most states don't allow SSM, but the behavior, the homosexual lifestyle, has been more and more accepted over the last few decades. What if SSM was made legal nationwide? How would that change the behavior?

If we want to impact behavior, morality and culture, then we should be talking about Christ's message. He is what changes people and behavior, not laws enforced by a government. As He said, "If you love me, follow my commandments." Yet the anti-SSM movement seems to focus on the commandment part while drowning out the call to love. If someone really loves Christ, then following Him commandments will com naturally. They won't need a law telling them what to do.

[Damien the Leper]

Valentinus,

Perhaps you would be willing to clarify your final sentence, I do not believe you meant it in the way I am reading in.

Nonetheless I will address it as written. As wenglund and and ERayR has commented, within a representative government those in the majority will have and should always have more power in the political process. Protections need to be in place to ensure the minority is not abused, but the minority should not have the same power as the majority in a representative government.

I refuse to bow down to any religious governance. We are not, thank God, a third world country where the government is established based on the premises and principles of a majority religion.

An example, the atheist who claimed as such on Facebook who was a citizen of an Islamic based society. This person was imprisoned for such a proclamation because it is illegal to be an atheist.

America is NOT to abide by such precepts even to a slightest degree.

[selek1]

If we want to impact behavior, morality and culture, then we should be talking about Christ's message.

Call For References- where have we stopped talking about Christ's message?

He is what changes people and behavior, not laws enforced by a government. As He said, "If you love me, follow my commandments." Yet the anti-SSM movement seems to focus on the commandment part while drowning out the call to love. If someone really loves Christ, then following Him commandments will com naturally. They won't need a law telling them what to do.

You are still laboring under the false notion that it is we who picked this fight.

You are still posturing as if we- rather than the radical homosexual lobby- are the aggressors here.

Such a position is dishonest, at best.

[Damien the Leper]

I'm glad that we have federal, executive and judicial representatives who protect the American society from evils such as the Federal Marriage Amendment that seek to destroy families and destroy America and Western Civilization.

[selek1]

I'm glad that we have federal, executive and judicial representatives who protect the American society from evils such as the Federal Marriage Amendment that seek to destroy families and destroy America and Western Civilization.

Setting aside the foolish hyperbole and near-hysteria intrinsic in the post- it is very revealing.

Radical SSM advocates, and catch-as-catch can moral relativists have been bleating for decades that "families come in all shapes and sizes"- and that "love is all you need".

These noble sentiments are betrayed by the insistence that the lack of government endorsement and public approbation somehow "destroys families".

A male is a male and a woman a woman based on their genome/gender- not by which bathrooms the government decrees they should use.

By the same token, if your family truly is a family- why does it need a peice of paper from the government declaring it to be so?

If your family truly is a family in anything other than arrogation of the term, why is it's survival and legitimacy suddenly dependent upon forcing other people to accept your definition?

Edited August 10, 2012 by selek1

[Akboy]

This is a false dichotomy. At best.

Not only does it represent an erroneous either/or dilemma, It also ignores a number of fundamentals inherent to the Church and its mission.

First and foremost, we are called to serve not only as witnesses to Christ and the Gospel, but as a beacon of righteousness. The Church is (in ever sense of the metaphor) a city on a hill.

I'm saying the gospel is our highest priority, not our only authority. My point is it seems like we're letting lower priorities dominate the conversation.

It is not enough that we testify of Christ- we are commissioned to proclaim righteousness and cry repentance to the lost and fallen.

Absolutely, the church's message should be about righteousness and repentance. So why are we trying to get people to follow one of God's rules when they don't even care about righteousness or repentance? It's like we're skipping over righteousness and repentance issues and going straight to the law.

Primarily- it would slow (rather than stop) the creeping tide of moral relatavism. SSM activists are demanding that the state sanction depravity.

If that is your approach, then you'll be focusing on the symptom rather than the disease itself. The problem with moral relativism isn't that people are acting immorally. The problem is they don't have a foundation to base morality on. If they get the foundation right, then the rest will be a lot easier to deal with.

They are demanding that the government of the people endorse behavior that is not only detrimental to the moral fabric of the nation, but is also morally repugnant to the vast majority of the population and antithetical to the laws of God.

What if, 30-40 years from now, Islam becomes one of the major religions in the US? Should the government base laws on their ideas of morality and the laws of Allah?

[onthepath]

I do not believe that the US government should recognize any ordinance or sacrament performed by a religious organization as legally binding, but for some reason they have. Since the beginning of American culture (and even before), the government has recognized the religious sacrament of marriage as legally binding. They freely give authority to religious figures to perform legally binding ceremonies. As far as I am aware there is no other religious activity that has been given official legal status. I am also unaware of any other instance where religions have been given authority to act for the government. In my opinion the government needs to get out of the marriage business. They have set ample precedence which has established that marriage is a religious ceremony including giving authority to religious leaders to perform legally binding marriages.

I think governments are well within theirs rights to establish civil unions in whatever manner they see fit, but they should not interfere with marriages which by the governments own actions have been viewed as religious ceremonies.

Technically, the part of marriage that the government recognizes as legally binding is the duly signed and witnessed certificate the county clerk issues. No certificate, no marriage. The government has allowed clergy to act as officers of the state in order to perform weddings - as a convenience for the state (which would otherwise have to do all those marriages itself. That's also why only specific LDS priesthood holders, for example, can perform wedding ceremonies and have them be recognized both by the church and the state - you can't just have your dad or your home teacher perform a civil wedding (he has to be serving in a specific leadership capacity within the church in order for the ceremony to be valid, or he has to apply to the state for other credentials).

[Akboy]

Call For References- where have we stopped talking about Christ's message?

I never said we stopped. I said it seems like we let the SSM issue dominate the conversation, at least in some cases.

You are still laboring under the false notion that it is we who picked this fight.

You are still posturing as if we- rather than the radical homosexual lobby- are the aggressors here.

Such a position is dishonest, at best.

Why does that matter? I don't really care who started it. The point is the gospel should be our highest priority and we shouldn't let secondary issues become distractions. Edited August 10, 2012 by Akboy

[selek1]

I never said you stopped. I said it seems like we let the SSM issue dominate the conversation, at least in some cases.

And yet it is the SSM advocates- not the Church- who insist on defining people wholly by their sexual predilections.

And, as has been stated several times now- we did not pick this fight.

We are not the ones seeking to overturn all of recorded history in order to justify our lusts and appetites.

Why does that matter? I don't really care who started it. The point is the gospel should be our highest priority and we shouldn't let secondary issues become distractions.

In other words, you have your idée fixe (that the Church should keep its mouth shut) and will not be dissuaded by mere facts.

[Damien the Leper]

Setting aside the foolish hyperbole and near-hysteria intrinsic in the post- it is very revealing.

No hyperbole at all. The Federal Marriage Amendment is an act of terrorism (again...no hyperbole or exaggeration). What is very telling is only what is perceived by your very astute and logically thinking mind. You'll likely do what you always do, Selek. That is to twist and mold others words to fit an, albeit poorly reasoned, set of statements to make your case as you have done above in (twice) to Akboy. This is telling as well.

By the same token, if your family truly is a family- why does it need a peice of paper from the government declaring it to be so?

If your family truly is a family in anything other than arrogation of the term, why is it's survival and legitimacy suddenly dependent upon forcing other people to accept your definition?

This will be the first time, I believe, where you can ask questions in which I can firmly place myself on the same side as you. I applaud you for doing so, Selek.

You are correct that not myself, nor any other gay couple, and nor any straight couple need legitimization of their families and how those families are defined. That piece of paper granted by the county recorder is simply a formality and registry to the state.

Also, I don't believe it necessary that anyone accept (or be forced to accept) some 'normal' or 'traditional' definition of marriage simply based on trivial religious belief systems or anything else.

Honestly, maybe the government across the United States should stop handing out marriage licenses. If churches want marriage to be conservatively defined then they can hand out cute little "Certificate of Marriage" or "Certificate of Achievement" papers when the ceremony is finished so that couples can hang the cute papers up on an obscure wall in their house where the government doesn't have to acknowledge it. This would be a fair enough solution, right?

[Avatar4321]

Yes. I do think we need to draw a line in the sand here.

Think about it. What happened when polygamy was outlawed by the Federal government? The Adversary used those laws to attack the Church, shut down the work of the Temple, persecute our leaders and create Chaos in Zion.

Do you think that it will be different this time? In another thread we are talking about what will happen if Denmak passes a law that will force Churches to allow gays to marry in whatever building, church, or temple there is. The Temples will be shut down. Whether we have to do it to protect the sacred edifice or because the government seizes it from us.

We cannot give the Adversary the weapons he needs to persecute and stall the work simply because we are unwilling to do what the Lord has asked us to do. He told us to be a light to the world. He told us to be leaders in making sure good occurs in the world. We are commanded to pass good laws. And if bad laws enter into law because we ignore the commandments of God, We will be punished first and foremost.

[ERayR]

I refuse to bow down to any religious governance. We are not, thank God, a third world country where the government is established based on the premises and principles of a majority religion.

An example, the atheist who claimed as such on Facebook who was a citizen of an Islamic based society. This person was imprisoned for such a proclamation because it is illegal to be an atheist.

America is NOT to abide by such precepts even to a slightest degree.

Correct majority rule. This means the majority get to set the standards. Protection for the minority. This means they can voice opposition but not ignore law.

[selek1]

I'm saying the gospel is our highest priority, not our only authority. My point is it seems like we're letting lower priorities dominate the conversation.

The operative word there is "seems".

Unfortunately, your perceptions and opinions are neither necessarily accurate nor binding.

Let's look at the reality: who started the Chick-Fil-A controversy? The radical LGBT activists who sought to punish Dan Cathy for his private religious views.

Who insisted that SSM should be a plank of the Democratic Party this year? The radical LGBT activists and their political lackeys.

Who insisted that SSM should be a matter of public record in the military rather than private conduct? The radical LGBT activists.

If it seems that we are having this conversation over and over and over, place the blame correctly- on those who are seeking to redefine the fundamentals of human society to accomodate their prurient appetites.

Absolutely, the church's message should be about righteousness and repentance. So why are we trying to get people to follow one of God's rules when they don't even care about righteousness or repentance?

False dichotomy. We are not trying to "get people to follow one of God's rules"- we are resisting an attempt to change the rule.

It's like we're skipping over righteousness and repentance issues and going straight to the law.

Speak for yourself.

If that is your approach, then you'll be focusing on the symptom rather than the disease itself. The problem with moral relativism isn't that people are acting immorally. The problem is they don't have a foundation to base morality on. If they get the foundation right, then the rest will be a lot easier to deal with.

No- the problem is that the LGBT activists are attempting to destroy the foundation because they don't like the wainscoting.

What if, 30-40 years from now, Islam becomes one of the major religions in the US? Should the government base laws on their ideas of morality and the laws of Allah?

The government should base its laws on the voice of the people.

That's what the Founding Fathers meant by "consent of the governed".

[Akboy]

And yet it is the SSM advocates- not the Church- who insist on defining people wholly by their sexual predilections.

And, as has been stated several times now- we did not pick this fight.

That doesn't me we have to follow their lead and and let them dictate what the conversation is about.

In other words, you have your idée fixe (that the Church should keep its mouth shut) and will not be dissuaded by mere facts.

No.

That is not what I'm saying.

I'm saying the church should be vocal advocates of the gospel. It makes a lot more sense than trying to get people to follow God's rules before they believe in God at all. We can advocate the gospel without making or trying to enforce laws against sin.

[guerreiro9]

I refuse to bow down to any religious governance. We are not, thank God, a third world country where the government is established based on the premises and principles of a majority religion.

An example, the atheist who claimed as such on Facebook who was a citizen of an Islamic based society. This person was imprisoned for such a proclamation because it is illegal to be an atheist.

America is NOT to abide by such precepts even to a slightest degree.

I hope that you nor I nor anyone here is ever subjected to religious governance against our wills, and I hope that what you mentioned never occurs in the United States. I also hope that no one's right to vote according to their individual conscience is taken away because their beliefs correspond with the agenda of an organization.

Every organization has an agenda, whether it be a church, a political party, or some other organization. Even if someone's personal beliefs align with one of these organizations, they still have the right, and should have the right to vote according to those beliefs. Some people do not wish this was the case. I personally wish I had freedom from both the Republican and Democratic political parties (which I don't think I have), yet I still want the respective members of these parties to be able to vote according to their beliefs.